Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

Steven Weinberg 1933–2021

Spread the love

From CERN:

Steven Weinberg, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of all time, passed away on 23 July, aged 88. He revolutionised particle physics, quantum field theory and cosmology with conceptual breakthroughs which still form the foundation of our understanding of physical reality …

Steven Weinberg is among the very few individuals who, during the course of the history of civilisation, have radically changed the way we look at the universe.

Gian Giudice, “Steven Weinberg 1933–2021” at CERNCourier (July 26, 2021)

Indeed. Quotes from Steven Weinberg:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

“Science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible not to believe in God” – Church and State

“I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” Steven Weinberg” – (Beyond belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival. 5 November 2006)

Question: Will this kind of obvious hostility to religion be more or less common in science in the future?

Note: We left the comments on to accommodate thoughtful comments (we often don’t do so for obits).

15 Replies to “Steven Weinberg 1933–2021

  1. 1
    Viola Lee says:

    I don’t remember the details, as it was long ago that I read it, but I really liked his “Dreams of a FInal Theory.” I remember finding it thoughtful and thought provoking, with some good thoughts about what science might or might not accomplish in terms of eventually coming up with a unified theory about how the physical world works. (It’s almost 30 years old, so I’m sure some of the physics is outdated.”)

    I also enjoyed “To Explain The World”, as I love the history of science.

  2. 2
    ronvanwegen says:

    Without religion (God) there is no such thing as good or bad. There is only, “I like this” or “I don’t like that”. And who cares what you like or don’t like? That means nothing to me. For something to be good or bad it must be measured against something else (something “out there”). If that something doesn’t exist then there cannot be any such thing as good or bad. If you do something “bad” and I don’t like it, I will gather together many of like mind to myself (if I can) and place you in a room that you cann’t get out of. However, your behaviour is still neither good or bad. It just is.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    CERN is a major source of modern genocidal RELIGIOUS fanaticism. I can’t say anything “appropriate” about a CERNiac who sees OTHER religions as subhuman.

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    Ronvanwegen @2,

    Excellent point.

    One notices that Jesus taught the converse:

    If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! -Matthew 7:11 (ESV)

    -Q

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    If removal of religion from a given society improves that society, why was the French Revolution called the Terror? They removed everything having any semblance of religious value to replace it with a nation ruled by man.

    Every time religion has been removed, the people under those governments suffer. Removal of religion, no matter how bad the religion may have been, such as Tsarists Russia, results in evil being called good by those in power.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Actually, on the C20 track record, ideology will do very well: 0 authors of the abortion holocaust 1 Mao 2 Stalin 3 Hitler, followed by many lesser anti-lights. The issue is that to be rational, we must be free and responsible, merely carrying out ipo programming on a computational substrate as a dynamic-stochastic machine is not rational. Rationality is inherently morally governed, but it is possible to warp, distort or break that down at individual or institutional [the workplace from Hell] or community or governmental or even civilisational level.

  7. 7
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    When we listen to a scientist we must ALWAYS keep in mind what the exact area of expertise of that person is. When he is talking about God(doesn’t matter if is pro or con ) it’s obvious the subject is OUTSIDE of his area of expertise so a good advice is to ignore his opinion because a scientist is not more qualified to talk about God than a street cleaner .

  8. 8
    Viola Lee says:

    From the OP: “Note: We left the comments on to accommodate thoughtful comments (we often don’t do so for obits).”

    Not sure these comments are thoughtful in respect to an obit.

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    It seems like Steven Weinberg was the typical “religion” hater who was religious himself.

    He just had different gods from the religious people he hated.

    Good? people get in this evil predicament when their hostility blinds them to a serious look at themselves.

    Andrew

  10. 10
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Dr Weinberg said that the evil in the world came from religious people

    So let’s take Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Communism, Nazism, Nietzscheism, Abortion, Nuclear Weapons, etc.
    According to Dr Weinberg, either……..
    1) Those evils were made by religion and religious people, or
    2) They aren’t evils.

    But on his passing, let’s remember how Dr Weinberg had to bear so much discouragement as he grew older, with Creationism back in the catbird seat. It couldn’t have been fun to be a leader of the Atheist Science establishment, with no rational (but non-Creationist) explanation for the origin of life, and no rational (but non Creationist) theory for the fine tuning of the universe.

    Anyhow, Dr Weinberg, let’s cherish his memory. His ideas, they gave us a lot of wonderful laughs.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    First, in paying respect to Steven Weinberg, Steven Weinberg often had a brutal honesty about the weaknesses inherent in his worldview of Atheistic Naturalism that you rarely find with other prominent Atheistic Naturalists. And for that brutal honesty he is to be greatly respected.

    For instance, although Weinberg discounted God as a viable explanation of the laws of nature in the video listed in the OP,

    Steven Weinberg – Where Do the Laws of Nature Come From? – video – Apr. 2020
    Weinberg: “That is a great discovery that nature is governed by laws. This something that wasn’t apparent for a long time. Used to be thought that everything had to be explained by the intervention of some nymph, or god, or something. In fact, the idea of laws of nature was rejected by a Muslim philosopher. Al-Ghazali, in the 13th century on the grounds that the very concept our God in chains,,, things happen not because there are laws of nature but because god wants them to happen that way. And they gave, for example, the idea of buying a piece of cotton. The cotton turns black not because of fire but because wants it to turn black. Or course that attitude makes science difficult.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqafS67QZIE

    ,,, although Weinberg discounted God as a viable explanation of the laws of nature in the video listed in the OP, elsewhere we find Weinberg honestly admitting that his very own worldview of Atheistic Naturalism cannot account for the laws of nature,

    Specifically, Weinberg honestly admitted, (to Richard Dawkins no less), “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    Quote:
    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    In fact, there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that could have described the universe but don’t. Gregory Chaitin has found that “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    Of course the correct solution to Weinberg’s question of ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ is, as Bruce Gordon succinctly explained, “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.””

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    In fact, that any mathematical ‘natural laws’ that might be found to describe this universe are “God’s thoughts’ was a foundational presupposition that was crucial to the discovery of these mathematical ‘natural laws’ in the first place.

    As Edward Feser explained, “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world.”

    Keep it Simple – Edward Feser
    Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    Perhaps the most succinct quote that gets this ‘God’s thoughts’ point across is the following quote by Johannes Kepler, which he made shortly after discovering the mathematical laws of planetary motion,

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!..
    Johannes Kepler – The Harmonies of the World (1619)

    To drive this “God’s thoughts” point home, I also offer the following quote by Isaac Newton, which he made in his book ‘Principia’, (which is widely regarded as one of the most important science books ever written).

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    – Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM.
    http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

    Although Weinberg omitted this little detail in the video listed in the OP, Weinberg’s worldview of Atheistic Naturalism simply cannot account for the ‘laws of nature’, whereas The Christian founders of modern science, since they believed God to be upholding this universe, readily expected to find laws of nature. (And indeed they looked for the laws of nature, and subsequently found them, precisely because of their Christian presuppositions)

    As Paul Davies explains, “,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,,” and”,,, What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.””,,,

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies – quoted from an address following his award of the $1 million Templeton Prize in 1995 for progress in science and religion.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Another place that Steven Weinberg was brutally honest about the weaknesses inherent is his worldview of Atheistic Naturalism is in his 2017 article, “The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics”.

    In that article, after dismissing decoherence as a plausible explanation, Weinberg stated that, “Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways. For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9 For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    I will quote Weinberg’s reasons for finding the realist approach ‘unsatisfactory’ in full,

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The realist approach has a very strange implication, first worked out in the 1957 Princeton Ph.D. thesis of the late Hugh Everett. When a physicist measures the spin of an electron, say in the north direction, the wave function of the electron and the measuring apparatus and the physicist are supposed, in the realist approach, to evolve deterministically, as dictated by the Schrödinger equation; but in consequence of their interaction during the measurement, the wave function becomes a superposition of two terms, in one of which the electron spin is positive and everyone in the world who looks into it thinks it is positive, and in the other the spin is negative and everyone thinks it is negative. Since in each term of the wave function everyone shares a belief that the spin has one definite sign, the existence of the superposition is undetectable. In effect the history of the world has split into two streams, uncorrelated with each other.
    This is strange enough, but the fission of history would not only occur when someone measures a spin. In the realist approach the history of the world is endlessly splitting; it does so every time a macroscopic body becomes tied in with a choice of quantum states. This inconceivably huge variety of histories has provided material for science fiction, 12 and it offers a rationale for a multiverse, in which the particular cosmic history in which we find ourselves is
    constrained by the requirement that it must be one of the histories in which conditions are sufficiently benign to allow conscious beings to exist. But the vista of all these parallel histories is deeply unsettling, and like many other physicists I would prefer a single history.
    There is another thing that is unsatisfactory about the realist approach, beyond our parochial preferences. In this approach the wave function of the multiverse evolves deterministically. We can still talk of probabilities as the fractions of the time that various possible results are found when measurements are performed many times in any one history; but the rules that govern what probabilities are observed would have to follow from the deterministic evolution of the whole multiverse. If this were not the case, to predict probabilities we would need to make some additional assumption about what happens when humans make measurements, and we would be back with the shortcomings of the instrumentalist approach. Several attempts following the realist approach have come close to deducing rules like the Born rule that we know work well experimentally, but I think without final success.
    The realist approach to quantum mechanics had already run into a different sort of trouble long before Everett wrote about multiple histories. It was emphasized in a 1935 paper by Einstein with his coworkers Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and arises in connection with the phenomenon of “entanglement.”13
    We naturally tend to think that reality can be described locally. I can say what is happening in my laboratory, and you can say what is happening in yours, but we don’t have to talk about both at the same time. But in quantum mechanics it is possible for a system to be in an entangled state that involves correlations between parts of the system that are arbitrarily far apart, like the two ends of a very long rigid stick.
    For instance, suppose we have a pair of electrons whose total spin in any direction is zero. In such a state, the wave function (ignoring everything but spin) is a sum of two terms: in one term, electron A has positive spin and electron B has negative spin in, say, the north direction, while in the other term in the wave function the positive and negative signs are reversed. The electron spins are said to be entangled. If nothing is done to interfere with these spins, this entangled state will persist even if the electrons fly apart to a great distance. However far apart they are, we can only talk about the wave function of the two electrons, not of each separately. Entanglement contributed to Einstein’s distrust of quantum mechanics as much or more than the appearance of probabilities.
    Strange as it is, the entanglement entailed by quantum mechanics is actually observed experimentally. But how can something so nonlocal represent reality?
    – Steven Weinberg – The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – January 19, 2017

    While Weinberg rightly found the realist approach ‘unsatisfactory’ because of “Many Worlds”, the Born Rule, and Quantum Entanglement, it is (very) interesting to note exactly why Weinberg found the Instrumentalists approach to be ‘unsatisfactory’.

    “The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
    – Steven Weinberg – The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – January 19, 2017

    In short, Weinberg rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because, quote unquote, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because, quote unquote, “the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    The level of honesty in Weinberg’s quotes, (for why he, as an atheist, personally rejected the instrumentalist approach), floored me when I first read them. (And again, now that he a passed on, I pay my respects to him for his brutal honesty).

    Yet despite how Weinberg, and other atheists, may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    Quantum Mechanics has, time and again, shown us that humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”

    For instance, and as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    And as this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established,, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality – George Musser – Aug. 17, 2020
    Excerpt: Now, researchers in Australia and Taiwan offer perhaps the sharpest demonstration that Wigner’s paradox is real. In a study published this week in Nature Physics, they transform the thought experiment into a mathematical theorem that confirms the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the scenario. The team also tests the theorem with an experiment, using photons as proxies for the humans. Whereas Wigner believed resolving the paradox requires quantum mechanics to break down for large systems such as human observers, some of the new study’s authors believe something just as fundamental is on thin ice: objectivity. It could mean there is no such thing as an absolute fact, one that is as true for me as it is for you.
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality

    Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence”, “freedom of choice”, and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company, then that VERY reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of physics originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    In short, the Shroud of Turin, (which is THE most scientifically scrutinized artifact ever from ancient history), provides evidence that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Here are a few notes to that effect:

    Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

    Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
    Discussion
    Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
    Theoretical model
    It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
    Discussion
    The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

    Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://www.predatormastersforu.....er=3014106

    So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Supplemental notes:

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

  13. 13
    Viola Lee says:

    BA quotes Weinberg: “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    I agree with Weinberg on this.

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @11 and 12,
    Thank you for the well-written and fascinating pieces from Weinberg along with your thoughts and those of others. Kevin Moran’s observations about the Shroud of Turin, are amazing. Ironically, the artifact (British spelling, artefact) might actually provide important clues about the nature of gravity, quantum mechanics, and its relationship with an extremely high pulse of energy.

    Viola Lee @13,
    Weinstein certainly had amazing insights, which he articulated simply and convincingly!

    It seems that all mathematical systems, while not necessarily compatible, share the logos between them as axioms and theorems.

    Beyond that, mathematical models of reality are only chosen by us for their immediate and possibly transient utility.

    All models are wrong, but some are useful. – George Box, statistician

    -Q

  15. 15
    ET says:

    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

    Without religion there isn’t any good or evil. Just animals being animals.

    Science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible not to believe in God.

    And yet thanks to science the case for God is more easily made. The case for an Intelligent Designer is the only scientific case to be made with respect to the universe and our existence.

Leave a Reply